Joe Biden is rethinking Anita Hill and revising history

Molly Hemingway is one of the best journalists out there. Here's her take on Biden and Hill. She actually does research, something unheard of for so many "talk at the camera" or "click and link" journalists.

"The issue [of Biden's revisionist history] is important, as the media and other partisans rewrite the historical record about Hill and her accusations. The widely watched hearings revealed inaccuracies in Hill’s various versions of events and ended with 58 percent of Americans believing Thomas and only 24 percent believing Hill."

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she-was-lying/?

Although it took me a few more years to leave the Democrat party, it was while watching the hearings I first became aware of the deep racism of that party.  They just could not fathom giving a black man who hadn’t sworn his loyalty to the master that kind of power.  He believes in the Constitution, and that was very scary.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/5185/6-pieces-evidence-anita-hill-was-lying-amanda-prestigiacomo

“. . . when I watched the hearings, just like probably many Americans, I accepted the idea that we had a contest of equal credibility between two people, between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I think the main message is that when you look at the evidence, when you go out, as I did, and interview third parties, pore over the documents and the records, the battle of credibility is settled hands down in favor of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill's testimony is really shot through with false, incorrect and misleading statements, and I think so much so that at the end of that particular part of the book it's very difficult to believe that what she said about Clarence Thomas is also true.”  David Brock, NPR, 1993 https://www.c-span.org/video/?43009-1/the-real-anita-hill

We’ve always had propaganda, but “fake news” is relatively new—and from the left

According to Sharyl Attkisson, who has researched and tracked it, fake news is relatively recent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa7QvcKYGZA&feature=share

The fake news meme began with Obama about a month before the 2016 election and the media ran with it--aggressively fact checking every word Trump said or tweeted, but not his opponents. Then came the calls for Big Tech to fact check. Was it a campaign to shape our news, by labeling website and stories "fake?" Follow the money. The money behind the first story by a non-profit First Draft (shortly before Obama's speech) came from Google. Imagine that. The parent company Alphabet was all in for Clinton. And then the smear to blame the right for Hillary's failures by David Brock (former right wing gay journalist in the 80s and 90s who flipped to the progressives and became top Hillary supporter); particularly he blamed Bannon and Breitbart News. He began to pressure Facebook and other social media to label conservatives, alt-right. Actually, since Brock's been involved since 2012 in pushing Clinton on the Democrats, he was just covering for his own failures. He had transformed an ethics group to a partisan group and "resigned." Then H. Clinton, the queen of fake, jumps in--remember her fake video and false Benghazi stories? She starts demanding fake news investigations, like "pizzagate." Wants to protect our democracy and innocent lives. (David Brock's boyfriend owned the pizza store.)

So, keep watching. It's very revealing. Although Trump talks about fake news, the opposition, the never-Trumpers, those with TDS, actually started the meme, and Trump ran with it and called them out for bias and sloppy reporting. The leftist media finally tired of the Fake News when Trump took it over, and they declare it dead and owned by the right. She goes on to explain how political lackeys and reporters work together--aka blackmail, and she has records of 2009 Obama aide e-mails with reporters.

Thank you for that, New York Times

Thanks to the New York Times investigative journalism, we now know more about Marco Rubio than Barack Obama. We know he took out student loans to go to law school and paid them back (shocker), that he lost money on one home sale during the housing bubble (wow), that he had 4 traffic tickets in 18 years (ouch), and he has an $80,000 boat bought after he got a $800,000 advance on his book. Gee, Bill Clinton can get more than that for two 15 minute speeches for foreign governments, and his speaking fees went up after Hillary became Secretary of State. NYT called Rubio's debt staggering, but Saturday one of their reporters, Lee Segal, wrote a piece on how to stiff tax payers and universities by defaulting on student loans.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/financial-expert-quoted-in-nyt-rubio-hit-job-is-obama-donor/

Can't wait to see what Soros money can dig up about Scott Walker. . . although actually just because David Brock is grateful for Soros' generosity doesn't positively identify his fingerprints all over the Rubio story. It was just the smell in the room.